tv Center for Jewish History Discussion on Combating Terrorism CSPAN December 26, 2015 5:20pm-6:31pm EST
serving tirelessly. it is not just those in uniform who serve, it is also the spouses, the kids. there are times you are missing birthdays, soccer games, making sacrifices. as we know, when you are deployed overseas, it is tough. even though we have been able to reduce the number of folks who are deployed in places like iraq and afghanistan, there are still folks over there every single day and it is still dangerous as we saw this past week. we had some outstanding brave men and women who were killed. we never take for granted what all of you do for the american people. you help keep us free. you will keep us strong. whatever service you were in, whatever branch, we are grateful
for everything you do every single day. we hope you guys have had a wonderful christmas. for those of you who are with your families, that is a true blessing. for those of you still a little bit far away from home, we hope you had a chance to give them our best and let them know we love them as well. michelle and i are looking forward to taking pictures with all of you. we see a couple of new babies this time. we always get our baby fix. when we take these photos. the main thing i want to say is keep up the extraordinary work. el and theon rest of the commanding officers here, thank you for doing an extraordinary job. thank you for welcoming us as well. the only problem i got when i am here is having to work out with marines in the gym because i generally feel like your
commander in chief is in pretty good shape. then i get next to some guy curling 100 pounds and makes me feel small. [laughter] that is ok. it gives me inspiration. i will work harder to keep up with you next year. thank you everybody. god bless you. >> president obama and his family are expected to remain in hawaii through the new year. when the president returns to washington, he will be nearly a week away from delivering his last state of the union address before a joint session of congress. that is scheduled for january 12. as always, we will have the speech live here on c-span followed by your calls and reactions by members of congress. >> as 2015 wraps up, c-span presents congress: year in review. a look back at all the newsmaking issues, debates and hearings that took center stage on capitol hill this year. join us thursday, december 31 at
8 p.m. eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell taking his position as senate majority leader. pope francis' historic address to congress. the resignation of house speaker john boehner and the election of paul ryan. the debate over the nuclear deal with iran and reaction from congress on mass shootings here and abroad, gun control, terrorism and the rise of isis. ongress: year in review c-span, thursday, december 31 at 8 p.m. eastern. >> this discussion about the role of american law in combating terrorism, it coincides with a 30th anniversary of the death of leon klinghoffer, a jewish-american businessman killed by palestinian terrorist and the cruise ship in the mediterranean. we will hear from lawyers, authors and professors at this hour-long event hosted by the center for jewish history.
>> good morning, everybody. good morning and on behalf of the center for jewish history and our partner organization, the american jewish historical society, i welcome you to our course on combating terrorism through american laws. a historic moment for us. this is our first ever continuing legal education course. to all of you who are attorneys here, a very warm welcome. we are delighted to service the site for a dancing your -- advancing your education. to our general audience, we are happy to have you here as auditors today. why here and why today? today, we are marking the 30th anniversary of the 1985 takeover of the crew ship achille lauro
and the murder of leon klinghoffer. the ensuing legal case against the terrorist group and the families ensuing an unprecedented settlement award opened the door to litigation against foreign terrorist organizations in the federal courts of the united states. it had a profound impact in prosecuting terrorism against american citizens at home and abroad through criminal and civil law and it is the jumping off point for our discussion today. not so much the focus, but where we go from here. klinghoffer's daughters are here with us today. for them, it is a moment not only to commemorate these events but with purpose to donate their family papers to the american jewish historical society. we are very grateful to them and acknowledge their generosity.
if you would just stand. [applause] we only have one hour so let us begin. out will briefly introduce the panel -- i will briefly introduce the panel. we don't normally do programs with so many cameras and lights. c-span is here recording the program. qwards the end when we do &a, if you would wait until the mic comes around to you that would be helpful. i'm going to start not directly to my right, but one over. let me introduce first professor lawrence douglas. you all have programs, i hope, see you have the full bios, but i will let you know who everybody is. lawrence douglas is the james grossfeld professor of law
at amherst college. he has co-edited 12 books on contemporary legal issues and has lectured in many countries, including addresses to the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia and the international criminal court. juliette, there she is. next to lawrence. is michael farbiarz. he is a professor at the center of administration for criminal law and the center for law and security. he has served as an assistant u.s. attorney for more than 10 years and from 2009 to 2014, he supervised the country's preeminent team of national security prosecutors as the co-chief of the terrorism and international narcotics unit at the united states attorney's office for the southern district of new york.
has spent 15em years managing complex policy initiatives and organizing government responses the major crises in both state and federal government. currently, she teaches emergency management and homeland security as a faculty member at harvard. businessfounder of a providing strategic advice to a range of companies in technology, risk management, venture-capital and more. -- the panellisist is oren segal who is the director of the research center. he is an expert on the radicalization process and criminal activity associated with homegrown extremists motivated by radical interpretations of islam.
immediately to my right is my great pleasure to introduce ruth edgewood who is our moderator. she is a professor of international law and diplomacy at johns hopkins university and chairs the international law program at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in washington, d.c. she is a former federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york who investigated and tried acts of terrorism and has served as a member of the united nations human rights committee and the pentagon defense policy board, as well as the u.s. secretary of state's advisory committee on private and public international law. i turn this over to ruth and i wish you a good morning. [applause] prof. wedgwood: thank you all for coming out on this beautiful
morning. i have not been on the lower east side for a very long time. it's an astonishingly beautiful neighborhood. it was a wonderful place to found the center. i want to give my heartfelt thanks to judy siegel for putting this together. and for giving me the opportunity to see former students, too. i have that one and that one. my grandfather was a tailor in brooklyn way back when. he spoke it is. this is sort of close to gentrified. it feels like a familiar neighborhood. i want to think obviously the klinghoffer family and the two daughters for being here. to a losso is gone know how tragic it is and how hard it is to assimilate. having a kind of celebration of your parents bravery and courage
and what one can do about this kind of activity -- terrorism, is something we all can relate to. so thank you for being here. we stand up for just one moment. [applause] prof. wedgwood: their father was a klinghoffer. it's a real immigration story. he owned a hardware store. in the lower east side. i wish i had known him. corpsned the army air which my father belonged to in world war ii. he flew missions as a navigator b 24.. 24 -- a then, i take it he had a kind of a handyman -- innovative quality. he created something called
roto-broil. when i would not be able to let my stuff, i could have used that. he had a very happy marriage. then, at a certain age, as one is entitled to, he took a vacation, sort of a passive vacation, getting a suntan, and the mediterranean on the achille lauro and failed to the middle of a terrible war. which, surely her parents did not anticipate. and was made a hostage at a victim by the palestinian liberation fronts and ultimately was killed by being thrown overboard in his wheelchair. i can't think of a more insane kind of attack. not even a fair fight shall we say, a gentle person in a wheelchair, and a bunch of
strong armed thugs who chose to make a political point, we think, by engaging in a sadistic act of violence. it is a celebration of the family and their courage. it is the occasion to think through how one can take steps to make sure that these kinds of extremely rare. i think the story today will not only be about the klinghoffer events, but about what kinds of -- it will be measures one can take to prevent this kind of thing from happening. i have to when the audience that professor douglas -- i think some of the questions that i might put at his suggestion have more of a kind of ontological, so all subgoal -- philosophical --
[indiscernible] here's agwood: wonderful question. if you are a lawyer, prosecutor or defense lawyer, you think of law as being founded on the acceptable norm of justice, but the one thing that most challenges the face that one has and lies when something completely off the books, out of field,e, out of left something incredible and inconceivable, happens whether it was 9/11, which to me was a stunning event as i flew down to washington for my first day at john hobson's. i knew it was the trademark motif of osama bin laden. or something like the event that happens to mr. klinghoffer. the first question -- [indiscernible]
when you have an active , sadism,nary violence atrocity -- what does it mean to create a remedy of justice in that case? putting people in jail seems banal.than now -- what does it mean to have justice in the wake of this kind of atrocity? it is a pleasure to being here. thank you to the klinghoffer family and judah for organizing this. as ruth mentioned, i wrote this question and was very much hoping that she would not visit to me. [laughter] that said, i: think it is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. i think crimes and acts of terrorism create particular challenges.
one challenge that i would identify is simply this notion that very often when we talk about doing justice to the criminal law, we are trying to punish retrospective ask, ask that have occurred in the past. very often, when we are trying to address the threat of terrorism, we are trying to eliminate threats in the future. it can be a very tricky business of using a tool, an instrument which is really meant to deal with acts that have occurred in the past as a way of trying to eliminate threats in the future. so, that i think is a very important thing to bear in mind. then, when it comes to this question of what does it mean to do justice using let's say the army criminal law -- and again, criminal law does not have to be the only kind of response. even the klinghoffer case makes clear that you can use civil lot responses also to ask of atrocity. but when he is the criminal law,
as a response to acts of atrocity, i think there are both great opportunities with doing criminal law, but i think there are limitations, as well. one of the limitations that i think immediately comes to mind is, depending on the level of the crime, sometimes they're almost seems to be a disproportion between a single individual in the dock or a couple of individuals and the dock and the level of the atrocity that is being considered before the court. i don't know if any of you -- this is a different case of terrorism -- one that is exit close to me, there's a documentary appearing on frontline about the lockerbie bombing. very close to are me, and his brother who was killed was a very dear friend of mine in college. one thing i thought was interesting about that was, they were basically two parts -- to
persons who were tried in his extraordinary court. --was a scottish court scotch court in the netherlands. there are basically two people kind of like to nondescript individuals, answering to this crime of mass anocity and it seems to be imbalance between the harm that was inflicted and these people in the dock. the other thing, the limitation, and dealing with the criminal law, there is always the chance of an acquittal. as one, criminal law is legal theorist once said, is always an irreducible risk with the criminal trial, and that is the risk of acquittal. for example, in the pan am 103 case of the two people who were prosecuted, one was acquitted. very quickly on the opportunities and the strength of the criminal law, i do think it is very important to demonstrate that even the worst atrocities can be submitted to the rule of law.
an adequate is response to atrocity as opposed to reaching the conclusion that no, we need to use some kind of extralegal response. the other thing, i think the law creates -- criminal law, creates an opportunity often for the victims or victims families to have a voice heard in a public forum. i think it also supplies, if done properly, a baseline account for the event. it creates a kind of baseline readilythat can be transmitted to it a public. i think criminal trials tend to attract galvanized international attention and can play a very helpful role in clarifying the historical record in the wake of an active mass atrocity. so, i will stop right there. since he is my
former student, i am bound to contradict him. [laughter] prof. wedgwood: a quick question before we go on. if you go to loss go you take a course in criminal law and they tell you that the purpose of having criminal sanctions are several, rehabilitation, i don't think that would be probably pertinent in the case of most committed ideological terrorists. the other is deterrence, probably not that either, because then we would have to go into an exercise knowing it would in badly in some way. the others incapacitation. send them off someplace where they would be harmless. criminal law is not without its significant risks, one is that a person could be acquitted or a jury will hang because you never know what jurors will think. it is the fundamental premise of bushels case any wish law and american law. you can't query a jury while they reach their verdict and you cannot send them back to think more if you do not like the verdict. it is a huge gamble.
discovered, is that the process of gathering proof, and a proof, helter-skelter terrorist attack is really awfully hard. the air of mystery that still surrounds lockerbie and who authorize the bombing, was a just libya or libya and friends? it will never be resolved by this kind of criminal investigative process. it requires something much farther to the ground in a way, intelligence sources, people's recollections. and i can'ts: respond? [laughter] prof. wedgwood: route of time. [laughter] prof. douglas: i'll be extremely brief in the response. obviously there is a risk of acquittal, but i think when ruth is talking about the basic purposes of a criminal trial, deterrence, or taking people out
of circulation, i think she is right. it imperfectly applies to these crimes of atrocity but i do think it overlooks the fact that these trials also have an expressive purpose. that is, they have a kind of symbolic expressive purpose, and i think that is a very critical thing that these trials performed. for example, you could even go back and look at the record of trials involving perpetrators of the holocaust, something that i have written a lot about. you'll find that many of the prosecutors associated with those cases justify those trials not in terms of the law against attorneys, but in terms of the logic of making an expressive statement about rule of law capacity to respond to these types of acts. prof. wedgwood: one last irony. then we really will go on. if you look at the nuremberg statutes from an armored trials, which was the international military tribunal for those crimes, it has a wonderful role of evidence, anything stated in
the u.n. document is taken to be true. it is not just hearsay, but it is quite true what you are saying. let me ask my policy oriented people. coral among yourselves. tool, one of the greatest challenges you have is using criminal law as a way of either deterring or incapacitating people who are involved in terrorist action. i have been in the field before 9/11 as a lawyer at one stage. first i want to thank judy and the klinghoffer family. i don't want you to leave this room without knowing the significance that the klinghoffer family has for the world that we live in now. it is hard to imagine now, after 9/11, but the idea that victims of terrorism or some political gesture would have a voice about
what their father mentor what their family meant and get some remedy did not exist, essentially, before. that this idea that they could go somewhere to express, not a larger policy issue about the rule of law, but for a remedy was just not a part of how people thought about terrorism. this was the plo and israel and there were these big geopolitical issues. so, the klinghoffer family and you guys brought it down to earth. these are human beings who have families. through that you did go the courts, even some of the failures, but also getting eventually legislation passed in the united states that gave voice to the victims. what i think is interesting that has happened since then, is that through thisce sort of post-9/11 world has
actually changed a little bit. it is less legal that maybe it is in terms of going to court. is of the transformations this idea of these funds. 9/11 ofare not the funds, the boston marathon funds, the idea that families have voice but we are not going to put them through this sort of horror of litigation. requiring them each, or as a class action, to determine what their family was worth or whether these terrorists are guilty or getting into geopolitics in a courtroom. but actually creating different systems in which their voice is heard. has some went through sort of remedy. while that may seem not legal, it actually is quite consistent with what was launched in sort of the aftermath of klinghoffer
which is we cannot abandon the -- its, we can talk about has a different form now. these well-known funds which occur after various terrorist incidents. to me, that is the legacy and also the transformation in terms of forum that has occurred over the years. prof. wedgwood: let me ask one question though which may be [indiscernible] -- when a jury comes back with a verdict, all they say is guilty, not guilty. they are not allowed to include any expression of horror and chagrin or tragedy, they just give the judge a response to his query that we find the defendant guilty or not guilty. it is not a very elaborate literary act. there is no real expiation in the course of that moment other than -- -- somebodyo really
visits there a trial, patiently can experience the horror of the events that are being narrated by the witnesses. --, there is nothing anymore iconmore -- there is no for really characterizing what the nature of the event is. how does criminal law work in that? i used to worry that there were unjustified acquittals. proposal was to try people here after 9/11 that if you can follow a juror home on the subway and nowhere here she lives it would be a very intimidated juror much last witness. the very publicity that makes a trial and attractive modality also makes it very vulnerable to interventions that will prevent it from ever proceeding to the verdict one wishes to hear. [indiscernible] i think that it is true
that that is a disappointment. that at the end of returning a verdict, the jury does not speak any kind of expressive pain about the moral balance of what has happened. i think it is important to know that that is only one of many disappointments that the criminal law brings. prof. wedgwood: [indiscernible] michael: making a person whole. you get hit by a car, then you get paid back. if a contract is broken, you will get exactly what you would have had otherwise. that does not happen in criminal law. if somebody loses their father to an active terrorist violence or to a mugging, or if your house is burglarized and you use your sense of security, we had a secular system. and, ultimately justice is not provided in the courts and ultimate closure and the ultimate making of whole is not going to come in the courts. so there are a series of disappointments that the criminal law entails not just at the level of her midi, but also
yes, the level of deterrence and the forward-looking capacity of the criminal law to deter. we have, as a society, i think many of us agree, overcorrected after 9/11 away from criminal exclusivelyrd more military responses to violence. in response to that overcorrection, many of us, i think, cleaned a little too much to the loss and have made claims to what the criminal law can do as a provider of ultimate justice, as a provider of a forum for incredible expression that is a little bit oversold. what is at stake in these conversations is not is the law a wonderful thing? the lies a wonderful thing. i was a criminal prosecutor for decades. i believe it in my bones. we must also understand what is at stake in waving the flag of criminal justice is a choice to displace another possibility. when we get down to it, i think some of the talk about the virtues of the law is really
talk that is designed to stay no to george bush in 2002, but maybe is not something we really want to take seriously with respect to how to deal with isis and syria and iraq today. some of the over inflation of criminal justice seems to apply that the alternative course is much rougher and is terribly violent and is inappropriate, but i think with respect to isis abroad, we want to go back to where we were to an exclusively criminal justice conception of the world. prof. wedgwood: the white house recent held a conference on violent extremism. we do not want to talk about islam has been peculiarly tied --terrorism because [indiscernible] lots of groups have used violence over the -- american revolutionaries were not entirely nice. --y tarred and worried
tarred and feathered tories. i would have been a canadian. there was a lot about tea, by the way. [indiscernible] terms, what isal cuthat one can do to try to the tie that much -- young men for the most part feel between violence and ideological dedication? why is it that the champion what should be, equal rights of muslims around the world and major societies are forthcoming and solicitous of their talents, why has it taken this form and have you actually --? for full disclosure i think i
am the only nonlawyer here. i will talk about nonlegal issues. uncomfortable with that. oren: i was part of the cd summit at the white house and the take away that i had from that -- there are a lot of people with different opinions about that. the take away that i think is probably the most useful for me what ways can we mitigate the threat of terrorism today? criminal law is one way. but, i think as you were alluding to, michael, we have to think of different strategies, as well. that includes communicating with various communities about what their role is in trying to combat that threat. that means working with the tech industry. listen, today people are getting radicalized and their parents basement in the back of their computers. you don't have to travel abroad to become a terrorist. you can sort of gain all of the
ideological justifications, the bomb making materials, the motivation, all of that from the comfort of your own home. how do we deal with those threats? some of that, somebody mentioned preemptive. this is where it gets a little bit risky. you don't want -- there are issues of entrapment that may or may not come up in this panel that need to be discussed. at the end of the day, as we have said, there are young people who are specifically being appealed to and targeted and recruited by people in different parts of the world, across oceans, because the access that they have to these ideologies and these networks is something that we have never seen before in human history. so what can we do, creatively, beyond just arresting people to try to mitigate that threat? part of it requires some thought of the law. when you're dealing with the tech industry, whether it is twitter or facebook or google or whatever the flavor of the month is, what responsibility do these
companies have? is a legal responsibility? when issa supporters are using twitter to try to recruit young people in bath and or california , is twitter providing communication equipment, is that providing material support to terror? do we say that is an unrealistic approach to this and maybe we need to get the tech industry to say, we recognize that they are exploiting our services and we need to come up with creative ways to mitigate that threat. these are questions that i don't think anybody has answered yet, but the people are tackling. there is no sort of magic bullet. so, i would just say, as we discussed legal remedies here, i do not think that those things can exist in a vacuum. i think we need to have the law-enforcement, we need to have the prosecutors, a good criminal justice system, but we need to have good creative people were coming up with ways to identify people at risk and give them alternatives. and maybe we can start spearing some people away before they actually commit an act.
that is the hard part. prof. wedgwood: to just put a question in response to that particular intervention. what would you do -- have a 10 second delay before things are posted? if you have a sequence of particularly meretricious comments or vulgar -- i think time to take things off-line is not an effective approach. that has been proven. there are some studies out there that show if you take former extremist, people who have not maybe committed a murder but who were going down that path of radicalization who then changed their mind at the last minute, 14, 15-year-old, 16-year-old girls in denver who were trying to join isis, they are not charged with anything. do take people like that with no mental health issues and to our reliable and have them interact with people who are online who seem to be getting radicalized,
that can be a really powerful mitigating force. you have people who have the same experiences who can be a voice of reason so it is not an issue of removing something theline, and then there is free speech issue. it is the question of giving people alternative narratives and finding ways to get access to them. maybe you change a couple of mines. prof. wedgwood: the one thing i've not heard much of in public in the tierney since 9/11 which i wish was present, has to do with the law of war. we used to have a johns hopkins site -- iraqi scholar who is arabic.- he spoke he wrote about the islamic law was nothich particularly congenial back then. to me, i wonder when the white house convenes a conference on violent extremism, and assumes that the remedy is having better
jobs, better health care, better access to i don't know alternative forms of amusement, said ironically, why not just address it on its face and say under islam, under any coherence at least moderate account of why not have a very serious colloquy among scholars of islamic law and say this stuff is illegal under any coherence account of islam? so that nobody can use religion as an excuse for violence. just like i would like to be able to say to jewish extremists just because they think they are remitting something they cannot be violent. either know people who can do that? i think the debate going on within the islamic
community as you can say that is monolithic in the same way that you could say the jewish community or whatever else is tremendously vocal and challenging internally about what is going on and whether -- and naming it rather than cve, actually naming islamicmething -- radicalization and violent extremism. that is assuming that people who are watching online actually care about the authority figures in these communities, whether they are the lawyers or the --. i want to add two things. first, what michael posed about the criminal justice system not being -- i don't think anyone who is critical of the criminal justice system or some of the tactics used in the bush administration said, is on the no war side. if you think of the tools
available for counterterrorism law, intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, war, countering violent extremism, all of the different tools, i think that the debate is which tool should be out in front at what moment and when? i think that is the debate. the countering violent extremism thing, the thing i always like to remind people, it is scary. it is mostly scary abroad. 'success story when it comes to the world we see right now is integration. it is assimilation, it is that immigrant children of arab-americans and immigrant children of jewish americans all feel committed to american security. we have 6 million muslims in america right now, maybe three or four dozen pretty scary cases. but, if our response undermines the sense of assimilation and
integration that whatever community right now obviously the muslim american community feels, we may actually turn into europe or turn into these countries that never actually integrated their immigrant notunities and are seeing four dozen cases but are seeing 22% of their muslim population polling at jihad or via glenn jihad as a legitimate form of expression. that is the dichotomy. it is scary. i was home of security and i know what the threat is. also, that our response cannot undermine our total success story as a country. which is, muslim american communities actually feel a part of this country in ways that is not true in europe and the radicalization we are seeing there. oren: can i add something, by
calling it islamic extremism or thesh extremism, i think point that is missed sometimes is -- and you said it that day, no one will care about those discussions, and be, if you look at the diversity of backgrounds of people who are actually attracted to these causes today, it is not as if the threat as minor as it is in the u.s. is one that is coming from within the muslim community, necessarily. you have suburban white kids in african-american kids and hispanic kids, people who are born and raised jewish or catholic or atheist or something totally different who are al qaeda and isis's call. much of the propaganda today does not even sort of try to use the religious justification to try to attract people. so, -- prof. wedgwood: [indiscernible] oren: it's sort of like again.
isis talks about a utopia, come here, things are different. they use americans to try to it recruit other americans. it is marketing. but it is not necessarily built some steep, deep knowledge of the misinterpretation of the religion. it is sexy and it is: we are trying to attract people to get to it. those are the messages that we and to try to address challenge, not the sort of larger message of islamic extremism is bad and we need to have that conversation. i don't think that will be effective. whatever points, i don't that we can ignore when we talk about terrorism all of the other ideological terrorism that we have in this country. like, yes, today, is a day that we focus specifically on islamic extremist threat, but every day, and the jewish community and others in this country, do not have a luxury to ignore the white supremacist and antigovernment response for more
deaths and murders on behalf of extreme as ideologies than islamic extremism in this country. we have to have a broader discussion of what is terrorism and not sort of pigeonholing it. >> if i could follow up on that, it is now something that seems like an adjective associated with islamic. prof. douglas: if you think about the killing and the church by dylan roof, and immediately designated that as a hate crime rather than an act of terrorism. when it seems like you could just as easily, to your point, and we could designate that as an act of terror. prof. wedgwood: what does one do though, and i should necessarily take europe as the paradigm case, but the long history is in germany where -- the germans did not try to encourage the turks to assimilate. there were issues about what level you could have voting.
the christian world tried to keep islam separate. it is less surprising to me that people who happen to be muslim therefore feel that they were put to their own remedy. [indiscernible] i think there is a kind of ofost predictable curb climax and abatement. report did the french for the u.n. human rights committee. i was astonished how tough it was to be a muslim in paris. to get hired, having access to --, chances of a government job when there was a muslim in the in france it was big news. an attractive woman who happen to be -- i don't knownd of what to call it, arrogance or
solipsism on the part of non-muslim communities who do not see any particular burden upon them to integrate muslims into their lives. prof. kayyem: that's a missing from the refugee thing. were so focused on numbers, germany gets as many, austria get that many. what's a long-term strategy? it has to be better integration of these communities. so focused on these numbers right now and these are human beings who might be in these countries for long time periods. and they have to put enough focus on if they have better integration, assimilation, job training, education programs. 20 years from now, when these kids that were coming over our 25-year-old man -- men. prof. douglas: i think it's interesting that we can identify economic barriers which make integration difficult.
and the case of germany, what was interesting is that for many years, germany had a net definition of citizenship which was a blood definition of citizenship. in the case of the turkish community there, by definition, these people were not eligible for german citizenship. that change. so that in itself, played a role of excluding people from the body politics. prof. wedgwood: at some point i've been directed by my -- that we should go to questions from the audience. put our burgeoning thoughts into the answers i'm sure. who from the audience about to put a question? to have a microphone for people? if you want to stand up and give your names you are mortal life. -- you are immortalized. >> i was wondering for a long
arrivehy the people who say a muslim majority country, some other countries, ,re given all kinds of help oflter, and quite a number possibilities and opportunities to succeed in the western showties that they never some need to have responsibilities of their own? to understand that this is a society where other people live. were postingeople them should be respected.
is shyness ont the part of the government to spiritual leaders and community leaders of these tocomers or immigrants and silence --s your what does it mean? so, unfortunately, there is a lot of soul-searching to stated briefly. a lot of soul-searching [indiscernible] nobody asks questions from the other side. why is that, that is the question? prof. wedgwood: i'm not sure who wants to take this question. i'll just observe.
i'm not sure will have the ability to say that is so if mosque inmoms in a brooklyn preaching against violence. i would not know about it unless they go online. i do think there are voices. i believe that there are voices in the muslim community who decry this kind of modernization and extortion of islam to say how it is inherently a religion of jihad. all of my panelists address that. >> i think that says it all. prof. wedgwood: i do agree with you sir that the more the message against violent can come stature in who have the target audience, the more effective it will be. about -- a question prof. wedgwood: who are you? >> jeff cooper. i'm proud to be here.
use ofgard to the criminal law and you commented on the mechanism of a criminal trial and the ultimate result, but in terms of a mechanism to actually attack the sources of , we of these influences talked here before the session mechanism to try to attack the financial capabilities of these groups either criminally or civilly or otherwise, and essentially trying to cut them off at the head. it could well be given the fact that she would need a computer, it is hard to really attack that in terms of hitting the financial capabilities of these groups, but what about using the government and other mechanisms to try and essentially strangle the group so they have -- they lose their financial ability to act? prof. wedgwood: i will ask my panelists to speak to whether anybody knows about the arab bank case and attentive cut off funds.
you are exactly right that there would be many -- to combat terrorism. and financial is one of them. you will not drain it just because the financial monetary system in the middle east tends to not be transactional through computers a lot of times. then there is the black market which will never be touched. it is our most impossible to touch the black market. it is also a tool and it is one of the major changes after 9/11 in particular, having offices in the treasury focus solely on counterterrorism financing. but, in terms of stopping it, to the point where there is a limitation of law, which are hearing from two lawyers, isis is winning because history graphically winning. to this narrative thing, they are the cool kids. people want to join an organization that looks like it is winning. joining, people call
hit -- thatpromise [indiscernible] part of it is a counter narrative. this is where a lawyer like me says, if you control the ground game, and they stop eating winners, recruitment falters. that is why isis is doing these horrible videos. it is not -- they are sadomasochistic, but they are recruitment. they are the cool kids. and they are winning. whether that means a commitment of u.s. troops, i'm not there yet. obviously, we have to win to the ground game first. prof. wedgwood: i take the point that every immigrant group has an informal system of taxation that avoids the sticky fingers of the states. whether it is the rothschild banks in the olden days or the banking now.
you can make it private the reliable. it works. [indiscernible] discretevery quiet and by the london lawyers who attend to free the vessel. there is a whole netherworld of their that is not subject to this crazy of u.s. treasury. what other remedies do we have? any questions from the audience on how you would approach terrorism apart from an attempt to change hearts and minds? through thisg balance between legal and nonlegal approaches to terrorism and violence, how would you compare the obama and bush administration and why is it the way it is? whether you think it has changed a lot or not changed a lot, why? prof. wedgwood: we will go to
michael first. the expert. back fori want to step just one moment and at go couple of things said a moment ago. quick things. first of all, i think the point about financing is exactly right. it is something that we all want to have, a palette of remedies. financing terrorist attacks does not take too much. if the aspiration is to choke off a terror group like --, like the plf, that has aspirations to hold territory to deploy large-scale armies and missiles, that requires a lot of money and financial tools can be very effective against those kinds of entities. but if what you are worried about is a person with a box cutter or about a person who is fired by isis who will shoot up a school in austin or new york, i think ais just transference of government attention and resources to a place that doesn't matter.
second of all, on the causes of radicalization, i think we would all do well to be a little skeptical of our confidence here. integration might be the answer, it may not be. there is a real debate any real discussion, i don't read arabic, i know student of this, i know i think that one thing which is that ideologies come and go, and if they look like winners, all other things being equal, they are little more popular. i don't know why their popular in the first place. i don't know why anyone would become a communist in 1925. but i notice my tractive to be a communist is communism is winning. all of the things being equal, all of the debates about integration or not, if it is integration, why are people attracted to isis in countries that are muslim majority countries? there's a debate to be had. winning. retaking territory. that is how, in part, the soviet union was defeated.
that's how ideologies are defeated. making them seem less like winners. so, to pick it to the conversation about the bush versus the obama administration staff, there is a lot of very theoretical sort of talk. i think a lot of it is in some sense over theorized. inside the united states, with two exceptions, ever, the united states's position has been that the criminal justice system needs to be used. that's it. outside of the united states, there are very few cases that are frankly makeable given the standards of evidence that we have in the united states. those cases have been energetically and aggressively pursued by the bush administration and by the obama administration. ,he quantum of drone strikes the kind of fighting that happens, i think the record will ultimately reveal that president obama has been quite aggressive
and using drone strikes, especially earlier in his first term. then-president bush. prof. wedgwood: another of my former yell students would say overaggressive. sometimes very poor targets. identification. some of the debate on that was george bush was putting a lot of people put away in gitmo that were caught in iowa or massachusetts and president obama has gone out to iraq and syria as part of the criminal justice system. neither part is true. george w. bush had two people were domestic terrorists. the obama administration has had none and i think that is the right choice. the obama administration, for its part, has been not commuted to exclusively using criminal justice techniques abroad. when we look back from a little bit of a distance, and get some of the daily discussions that political candidates generate more than anyone else, there is a great continuity and how the
various tools have been used between the two administrations with the exception of guantanamo bay. and course of interrogation which was a big -- prof. wedgwood: let me ask a question about drone strikes. one of the concerns that people [indiscernible] , you aret is so easy nothing but what you are doing if you see just a little blob on a screen. do you think that from the point of view of winning hearts and minds, the one side of risk is that the operators are completely safe. there is no quality of arms. that that it would be a radicalizing, could be in the
wrong hands, wrongly applied, a radicalizing stimulus. that out of the sky comes a missile that hits a village wedding until 13 people and the family members may or may not get some recompense for their loss. prof. douglas: one thing about the predator drone strikes, there are the politics of attention. to the extent that having detainees in guantanamo has turned into an incredible political hot potato. you avoid any kind of problems with detention if you do not detain people in the first place. one way not to detain people in the first place is to take them out with a predator drone strike. the other point that you made is i'm not really sure about -- i think the ultimate change from the predator drone strikes as you point out is, is the absence of accurate intelligence was
acted targeting, and also with respect to collateral damage. that seems like a -- or what is called collateral damage. that seems like a gas. it is an incredible powerful recruiting tool. if you go ahead and you are killing people who are innocent and an effort to take out someone who is arguably a terrorist. you are doing so from a position of invincibility. prof. wedgwood: one comment i've heard in washington from people is that unless there is a method of giving compensation to innocent victims and their families, then, the message that is sent is one of callous disregard. we hit your mother. sorry. what happened again until next time. so that, in fact, if you are a tool asse so-called drone strikes, one would at least want to have a system thee some acknowledgment of
burden of loss is part of the --. we're almost out of time. we have one more question. >> thank you. wondering, if here in new york, they always say, you see something, say something. what do you do if you are traveling in europe and you believe you saw something or overheard something? where do you go? prof. wedgwood: i would go to the american embassy and reported to the military terrorism staff member. prof. kayyem: all european countries have fbi legalize cachet's that are accessible through the embassy. i would go through the u.s. embassy. maneuver a trying to local criminal system. every european country will have a very rigorous international footprint.
i think to add one thing, it poses as rational participants in our society to have a skill -- a skill than honest sense of what the danger of terrorism is. it is thankfully, thanks in part to law-enforcement, it is a much, much smaller danger than being robbed or being shot in a drive-by shooting, or actively been in a car accident. when you see something, say something, that is a valuable thing. of that is the costs it stokes up in all of us, a disproportional sense of the threat. it is an important issue an important problem, but it is not in the top 10 in terms of causes of death or injury in our country. of -- thats a kind we all feel when we see the signs. law enforcement does a good job. we can take a little more of a breath and we allow ourselves or its than those signs signal to us.
one of the reasons law enforcement does such a good job as their work with nongovernmental organizations. especially in our primary training for law enforcement, they have been leaders. the klinghoffer family. to go back to original question of what you can do when you do not have a voice necessarily in a courtroom, here are two daughters who through the work with adl turn the strategy -- this tragedy into working for years and making sure that law enforcement is able to mitigate this threat moving forward. so, thank you, guys, for doing that. [applause] prof. wedgwood: i wanted to tell one sort of funny story in closing. which is that when i served on the human rights committee, we said in geneva twice a year and a new york once a year. i had a lovely colleague who is about 82 years old.
i think you're his line, maybe 92 years old. he has been an ambassador from egypt and i would always taken to lunch. in a teasing voice would propose marriage to me. or ask if they might be interested. he would point out that in islam, they recognize prior holy mwnen. they recognize moses and jesus and mohammed. and a proper interpretation, the ethical content of islam is a measure of all of those religions in a kind of syncretic integration. i do think that one lesson has to be for us as well as for others that one should seek to capture in each religion what is deeply ethical. a sort of natural law, as well as normal human instinct. so thank you very much to the entire jewish historical society
>> on this weekend's newsmakers, our guest is national education association president lili asquith in garcia, representing the nation's largest teachers union, she talks about several education issues, including the every student succeeds act, which congress passed earlier this month as a replacement to no child left behind. atch the interview tomorrow 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. sunday night on q&a, tyler able stepson of the late washington columnist drew pearson talks about the second volume of mr. pearson's diaries which give an insider's take on washington, d.c., from
1960-1969. >> it was just remarkable, all of the things that he did. sometimes, he would criticize himself in the diary as he had -- there are places where he said i think that column was too strong and i should not have said it quite that way. or lyndon johnson will get mad at me for the way i wrote that column. but he needed to be told. i'm glad i wrote it. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student can documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. while a c-span's red to the white house coverage and get all of the details about our student contest at c-span.org. here on c-span, the
communicators is next with a look at the music industry. our guest is alan mark freed, an associate professor at berkeley college of music. series, landmark cases concludes with the supreme court's 1973 decision in roe versus wade. look at race and efforts to improve the criminal justice system with a former st. louis police officer. >> c-span, crated by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. now on c-span, we want to introduce you to professor alan. he has an associate professor at the berklee college of music in boston. he is also the executive director of an organization called re-think music.
is racing toat music and what is the report you just came out with on the music industry? >> re-think music is a think tank that reformed at berkeley in 2009. it looks at the future of the music business. over the past 15 years there have been a number of disruptions and changes within the industry. because we have more than 1000 graduates coming out from our college every year and need to have a viable career in the music industry. we chose to open up a think tank why research initiative to really look at some of this and try to foster innovation in the music industry and try to foster sustainable, musical ecosystem. >> two questions. downloads orebody uploads a song from itunes, visit dollar 99 for one song, where does that dollar 99 go? who gets it? typically, any download from
itunes, 30% of that is kept by apple. 70% is paid out to the rights holders and that is generally split 10% allen: about 50% to record labels and the artists they present -- represent. peter: how much did they get out of that 70%? allen: it depends on the contractual deal between the record label and the artist. depending on the negotiating power of the artist. there are a variety of deductions that come into play as they are paid off at the record label. there is a recoupment of costs. other cause our marketing, third-party promotion, toward --